There should be a statute of limitations on fugitives. After a certain period of time the government should just give up and say "You win" and move on to other things instead of wasting more time and money on it. Especially if it's been over 40 years.

had98c:There should be a statute of limitations on fugitives. After a certain period of time the government should just give up and say "You win" and move on to other things instead of wasting more time and money on it. Especially if it's been over 40 years.

Unless if it's Cold War spies that have the schematics for secret weapons.

What's the point of formally granting him an administrative discharge? Just ignore that he's technically missing. In the unlikely event he turns up, then he can be rearrested. If he doesn't, who cares? I understand the point that they have to declare him presumed dead at some point, but why not do so automatically at the age of, say, 110? That prevents any possibility of letting somebody escape justice. As it is, this guy could turn up tomorrow and would be scot free unless he resumed his crime spree.

Forced Perspective:What's the point of formally granting him an administrative discharge? Just ignore that he's technically missing. In the unlikely event he turns up, then he can be rearrested. If he doesn't, who cares? I understand the point that they have to declare him presumed dead at some point, but why not do so automatically at the age of, say, 110? That prevents any possibility of letting somebody escape justice. As it is, this guy could turn up tomorrow and would be scot free unless he resumed his crime spree.

It takes resources to keep a case active and the odds are that someone well past average life expectancy is dead. The law doesn't catch everybody. People commit crimes without getting caught all the time. And since the U.S. already has the highest percentage, by far, of its population in prison, how much harder should we try, really? Arguably we should be easing up, in fact.

Forced Perspective:What's the point of formally granting him an administrative discharge? Just ignore that he's technically missing. In the unlikely event he turns up, then he can be rearrested. If he doesn't, who cares? I understand the point that they have to declare him presumed dead at some point, but why not do so automatically at the age of, say, 110? That prevents any possibility of letting somebody escape justice. As it is, this guy could turn up tomorrow and would be scot free unless he resumed his crime spree.

That would be funny, to stay in hiding for close to 44 years for the purpose of skipping out of a 15 year sentence.

Guy was a career criminal, no real job skills, long history of run-ins with the law. There's no way he escaped and never re-offended, and especially if he wanted to make contact with his family again. He probably died not too long after he escaped. It's barely possible he was re-arrested under a different name; but if so, he died in prison under that name, again, not too long after that and wasn't properly identified. There's just no way he lived a long, trouble-free life and died a free man.

Forced Perspective:What's the point of formally granting him an administrative discharge? Just ignore that he's technically missing. In the unlikely event he turns up, then he can be rearrested. If he doesn't, who cares? I understand the point that they have to declare him presumed dead at some point, but why not do so automatically at the age of, say, 110? That prevents any possibility of letting somebody escape justice. As it is, this guy could turn up tomorrow and would be scot free unless he resumed his crime spree.

I think if he shows up now, it'll be because he has serious medical problems and the state would rather not pay his medical bills.